Music industry must change the record
It took industry outsiders to create mechanisms to ensure paid-for music has a viable future
It is said to be one of the biggest robberies in history, but where is the actual damage? Yes, it's downloads time again. The music industry simply won't give up blaming everyone but itself for the sorry state it claims to be in. It has eased off prosecuting teenagers - future customers - for downloading in their bedrooms. Smart move, that. But it still insists that internet service providers, such as BT and Virgin, do its dirty work by stopping the flow of illegal downloads.
But what's so special about music? If ISPs are responsible for pirate music flowing past them, then ditto for pornography and everything else. Great idea: I can sue my service provider whenever a virus gets onto my PC. How dare they let it through! It is an unworkable solution designed to placate an industry that still doesn't fully understand what is happening. The industry's response to the creative revolution, in which artists remix and mash each other's work, is to go hell-for-leather to extend copyright law for recordings from an overlong 50 to 70 years so that a minority of rich copyright holders - often companies set up to exploit someone else's rights - can pass royalties on to their successors. If copyright lasted for 20 years, as patents do, the economy would gain from wealth produced by artists making their own versions of Snow White, or whatever.
The industry, which successfully sued The Pirate Bay operation, claims that more than 1bn illegal music downloads were made in 2007, crippling the industry. I don't approve of illegal downloads, but where is the evidence of economic damage? Look at the figures. In the last quarter of 2008, album sales in the UK were - wait for it - 0.9% up on the previous year, when the economy contracted by 1.5%. And UK royalties for songwriters rose 8% in 2008. Recession? What recession? Overall album sales, which some had predicted would collapse by more than 10% in 2008, fell by only 3.25%, while digital albums rose by 65%. And the singles market? Why, 2008 was the biggest year on record in terms of units sold across all formats.
So where is the damage? The music industry is like no other. It is a spectrum ranging from constantly broadcast free music (including internet radio where you can search for a favourite track being played live) to albums bought in shops. If you buy a Nokia Xpress Comes With Music phone (for under £130) you can download up to 4,000 tracks legally. Does anyone need more? Spotify enables you to hear streamed music of your choice with occasional adverts, free and legally. This is easier than sorting through thousands of peer-to-peer tracks downloaded to your desktop. Last.fm does something similar and Apple's iTunes paved the way, proving that people will pay for affordable music that is easy to download.
Have you noticed something about these companies? None of them came from the music industry. While the industry was suing customers to preserve the status quo, it took outsiders to create mechanisms to ensure paid-for music has a viable future. If music had created its own payments system with prices reflecting the zero cost of extra tracks it could have seized control of the creative revolution. It has certainly spawned millions of freeloaders, but also people who buy new tracks after hearing pirated versions and lots like me who started buying music again after a long absence because it is so easy. As people increasingly listen to music on their mobile devices where, unlike the web, there is a built-in payments system, the problem of pirated tracks should diminish.
Meanwhile, how many of the billion tracks claimed to be downloaded represent actual economic damage such as lost sales it is impossible to say, except that it is not remotely as great as the industry claims. Indeed, if there had been no publicity about illegal downloads then, on the published evidence, the music industry is one that has been doing remarkably well during the recession.
Victor Keegan
The Guardian, Thursday 21 May 2009
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
It took industry outsiders to create mechanisms to ensure paid-for music has a viable future
It is said to be one of the biggest robberies in history, but where is the actual damage? Yes, it's downloads time again. The music industry simply won't give up blaming everyone but itself for the sorry state it claims to be in. It has eased off prosecuting teenagers - future customers - for downloading in their bedrooms. Smart move, that. But it still insists that internet service providers, such as BT and Virgin, do its dirty work by stopping the flow of illegal downloads.
But what's so special about music? If ISPs are responsible for pirate music flowing past them, then ditto for pornography and everything else. Great idea: I can sue my service provider whenever a virus gets onto my PC. How dare they let it through! It is an unworkable solution designed to placate an industry that still doesn't fully understand what is happening. The industry's response to the creative revolution, in which artists remix and mash each other's work, is to go hell-for-leather to extend copyright law for recordings from an overlong 50 to 70 years so that a minority of rich copyright holders - often companies set up to exploit someone else's rights - can pass royalties on to their successors. If copyright lasted for 20 years, as patents do, the economy would gain from wealth produced by artists making their own versions of Snow White, or whatever.
The industry, which successfully sued The Pirate Bay operation, claims that more than 1bn illegal music downloads were made in 2007, crippling the industry. I don't approve of illegal downloads, but where is the evidence of economic damage? Look at the figures. In the last quarter of 2008, album sales in the UK were - wait for it - 0.9% up on the previous year, when the economy contracted by 1.5%. And UK royalties for songwriters rose 8% in 2008. Recession? What recession? Overall album sales, which some had predicted would collapse by more than 10% in 2008, fell by only 3.25%, while digital albums rose by 65%. And the singles market? Why, 2008 was the biggest year on record in terms of units sold across all formats.
So where is the damage? The music industry is like no other. It is a spectrum ranging from constantly broadcast free music (including internet radio where you can search for a favourite track being played live) to albums bought in shops. If you buy a Nokia Xpress Comes With Music phone (for under £130) you can download up to 4,000 tracks legally. Does anyone need more? Spotify enables you to hear streamed music of your choice with occasional adverts, free and legally. This is easier than sorting through thousands of peer-to-peer tracks downloaded to your desktop. Last.fm does something similar and Apple's iTunes paved the way, proving that people will pay for affordable music that is easy to download.
Have you noticed something about these companies? None of them came from the music industry. While the industry was suing customers to preserve the status quo, it took outsiders to create mechanisms to ensure paid-for music has a viable future. If music had created its own payments system with prices reflecting the zero cost of extra tracks it could have seized control of the creative revolution. It has certainly spawned millions of freeloaders, but also people who buy new tracks after hearing pirated versions and lots like me who started buying music again after a long absence because it is so easy. As people increasingly listen to music on their mobile devices where, unlike the web, there is a built-in payments system, the problem of pirated tracks should diminish.
Meanwhile, how many of the billion tracks claimed to be downloaded represent actual economic damage such as lost sales it is impossible to say, except that it is not remotely as great as the industry claims. Indeed, if there had been no publicity about illegal downloads then, on the published evidence, the music industry is one that has been doing remarkably well during the recession.
Victor Keegan
The Guardian, Thursday 21 May 2009
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
